Jump to content

User talk:Joe1p1p

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was I blocked?--Joe1p1p (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joe1p1p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet and have no idea why i was blocked, please unblock me

Decline reason:

Per discussion below — Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The blocking admin has been contacted. I am awaiting his response to find out why you are blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Jayron32, thank you for your message. Wow, I was just looking at the history of people gyrofrog blocked and it is amazing that he has blocked anyone who he does not share his point of view about Marilyn Monroe, and some other sections. He claims we are all the same person or linked. I am not linked to any of those names, or people. Looking at his history, I think he blocks anyone who believes Marilyn Monroe was murdered. There are millions of people who beleive the same thing, and so many books about it. Thank you--Joe1p1p (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Cross-posted to Jayron32's talk page and to RFCU) I anticipated this might happen, given the checkuser results. I did not take the "Unrelated" result lightly (although I also noticed the involvement of an open proxy in the same result).
  1. I believe this passes the "quacks like a duck" test in any case.
  2. User:Octavian history had previously threatened to suggested he could take measures to conceal his IP address ([1],[2]). Personally I am surprised there hasn't been an earlier attempt at concealment.
  3. Regarding his statement, "There are millions of people who beleive the same thing, and so many books about it". I suggest scanning Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe and comparing how often this same assertion has been made, and by whom (here are some diff links [3], [4],[5],[6]).
  4. The second and third edits made by the Joe1p1p account were to archive part of the Talk:Marilyn Monroe page. ([7],[8]). This is a relatively advanced task for an ostensibly new user. The last person to archive the talk page ([9],[10]), User:Star-in-law, had already been associated with the Octavian_history account. In both cases they removed (from the active talk page) discussions critical of the purported sex tape that was in the news a couple of months ago (see my comments on the RFCU page about this appearing to be "damage control").
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Sorry but is this a bad joke? I do not want to do "damage control" for anyone, lol!! Hahaha. Very funny. Wow, you sure take Wikipedia seriously. Sex tape? What? Again I am not linked to any of the names Gryofrog wrote. The things he wrote are crazy, I have no idea what he is talking about. The only thing is that I absolutely do agree with the post the person did about her death, so do thousands of other people. Its crazy to think everyone who agrees about her death must be linked. Gyro must be obsessed with Marilyn. Wow, and he is a Wikipedia Admin? What is going on?--Joe1p1p (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joe1p1p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am NOT A SHOKPUPPET FOR ANYONE, PLEASE HELP

Decline reason:

I do not know whether you are the sockpuppet of this specific editor or not, but when I reviewed your edits, they were more consistent with the typical behavior of a more experienced editor than with the typical behavior of a new editor. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict with above decline, text of my decline) You have made no attempt to refute or explain the evidence against you, and have only attacked other editors (calling the admin who blocked you "crazy"). The evidence, that you performed a complicated and esoteric action with your second edit at Wikipedia, and that said action was identical to that of a blocked user who frequently uses multiple accounts and open-proxy IP addresses to avoid his blocks, is fairly plain. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I try to explain something that has nothing to do with me at all? Admins are not Gods, but people, and can also make mistakes, but you have to admit he is a little over the edge. What I wrote is NOT like what the other person wrote, at all! Plus, I just read what he wrote and don't see what is so wrong with it? I read a lot of negatives stories about how a bunch of thugs are running Wikipedia and have turned it into a private club. Now I understand why. Ps-Yikes! This guys name is "Gyrofrog" and writes gibberish accusing me of crazy things and you don't think he's nuts? Maybe you should read what the definition of crazy is.--Joe1p1p (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joe1p1p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, I can prove this

Decline reason:

We await your proof — Stephen 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

    • YOU STUPID DUMB ASS IDIOT, IF I HAD THE ABILITY TO "take measures to conceal the IP address" DON'T YOU THINK I WOULD HAVE DONE THAT BY NOW!? INSTEAD OF WASTING MY FUCKEN TIME WITH THIS SHIT?? I DON'T KNOW WHO THE FUCK OVTAVIAN IS OR WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE "GYRO" FUCK HEAD, YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE OR GET LAID OR SOMETHING. YOU HAVE NO LIFE! PATHETIC Sorry, but I just had to say how I feel about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1p1p (talk • contribs) 06:02, 18 July 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe1p1p&oldid=442134886"